Wizofaus “who object to immigration on the grounds that it dilutes our European heritage etc., including "Dresedener" who you appear to agree with”

Your tinted interpretation of Dresedener’s post differs from mine. I drew the obvious conclusion that, recognizing that we live in a world of “Pick and Choose”, whoever was allowed to migrate to Australia should be first seen as someone whose contribution should be sought by Australia.

As one who had to wait to be “chosen”, under the recognition of demand for given qualifications / skills, required back in the 1970/80’s, I can assure you I have no problem with anyone from any ethnic background, who can pass the migrant muster tests, contributing to Australian community.

As for “The reality is that our Anglo heritage will eventually get diluted away, whether people object to it or not.”

That “anglo” was an “anglo-saxon” heritage, which also represented a fair minority of roman and celtic origins.

The REAL reality is “this anglo heritage”, like the original “Anglo heritage” in UK, is (for the past 3000 years or so), a constantly changing feast.

All original aspects, be they “Anglo”, Arab, African, Asian or indigenous will get “diluted”, as a single Australian cultural mix continues to evolve and change.

It is a bit like Brazil, where the nuts come from (of which you seem to be an example, resplendent) and of which it is also said “there are a lot of coffee coloured people”.

So, bring it all on, we are, after all, a single nation, not just a bunch of ethnic "tribes".

And just be thankful that we are building on the work-ethic and attitudes of protestant Englishmen, rather than the siesta inclined southern Europeans who ravaged South America, the Belgians who tormented their African dominions, the Germans (who largely missed grabbing their “place in the sun”) or the Indonesians who demonstrated their capacity for colonial statemanship in East Timor.

Scotty “All of Africa needs to be re-colonised to make it stable again.”

I would agree with that,

Rainiers, responding to Scotty, such a boofhead.

daggett asked me to post this:

CJ Morgan,

Regarding the quote from Gore Vidal posted originally to http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/b_board.htm and subsequently to http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1193.jsp in the article "The Folly of mass immigration" by Anthony Browne of 1 May 2005:

I received the following in an e-mail from a maintainer of the Irish web site http://www.immigrationcontrol.org :

"... The newspaper cutting from which that came was an article by Mary Ellen Synon who shared the platform with Gore Vidal when he spoke to the Politics Society in Trinity College Dublin some time in 1999. Unfortunately I have no date on the cutting. It was the Sunday Independent, an Irish paper, and the speech was the previous Monday. If I can track the date I will but it would probably be difficult."

If you like you can follow this up further for yourself by contacting the maintainer of the web site.

Now how about ceasing your resort to personal attacks and the dragging of red herrings across the trail and getting on with discussing the substantial issues?

Dagget/cacofonix/James Sinnamon or whoever you are today - frankly, I don't believe you, but if you want to have multiple identities on this forum in order to circumvent the posting limits or escape being identified with your dog-whistling, that's your funeral, I guess.

Back to Vidal's supposed speech: you said "Certainly the part of his speech, excluding specific mention of Norway can be found in this Guardian Weekly articles of 2 January 2000 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/2000/article/0,,196650,00.html". Not only no mention of Norway, but neither of immigration nor Bangladeshis. Now you claim that the article was by "Mary Ellen Synon" rather than Gore Vidal, and that it remains conveniently untraceable. How surprising.

At any rate, I've already told you what I think of it above (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96174), but you haven't deigned to respond, apparently preferring to play identity games instead.

daggett: "I consider the motives who have expressed those [racist] opinions on this forum are still more honest than those who have expressed 'anti-racist' views". I suppose the overtly racist views of members of your cohorts like redneck, Col Rouge (does that make two rednecks?), Scotty, Sancho et al may have the "honest" motivation of maintaining "white" supremacy, but that makes them no less odious.

That you are happy to not only dog-whistle such a pack of baying hounds, but also to defend them despite your attempt to distance yourself from their drivel, supports my contention that your identity games are chiefly designed to allow you to promote racist ideology.

As I've intimated, I generally support the limitation of immigration to Australia on ecological grounds, but it seems to me that the consideration of so-called 'race' in that issue is counterproductive, to say the least.

CJ Morgan “I suppose the overtly racist views of members of your cohorts like redneck, Col Rouge (does that make two rednecks?),”

There must be pixies at the end of your garden, who you like to play with, if you can interpret anything which I have written as “racist” in any way.

“Meritorious selection” holds no fealty to racism, although its deployment might be misinterpreted by the innately limited and used as the rally cry for racism by those incapable of higher thought, as we see here.

“That you are happy to not only dog-whistle such a pack of baying hounds,”

Oh such hyperbole, doubtless drafted as you deployed your inherent ability to find truffles.

To which I would say: better to run with the dogs than be herded with the hogs

Wizofaus. To claim that white people are more murderous than other races, is an act of racism. I can say something like that, because I am a racist. But you can not say it, because you are supposed to be anti racist.

Orwell was right. Pseudo intellectuals are unable to fathom the obvious contradictions in their own arguments.

Every single civilisation which has ever existed, Wizofaust, came into being by virtue of its military might. Wars of conquest, genocide, and slavery are features of all civilisations, not just white ones.

European civilisation fell in 400 AD with the fall of Rome, and what makes you think it could not happen again? The Roman rulers and intellectuals became so disinterested in the welfare of their own farmers and workers (who had always manned the Roman legions) that their own people saw no reason to fight for their own state’s survival. Nonplussed, the Roman patricians simply invited in the barbarians, with whom they “outsourced” the defence of their own realm. These barbarians became the very enemies who eventually destroyed Rome from inside. Sound familiar?

Those who fail to learn from history…….

One of the reasons why European civilisation took so long to get back on its feet was because it was because from 400AD to 1300 AD, Europe was besieged from the North, South, and East, by barbarians, and there was no European civilisation strong enough to defend Europe by counter attacking. Those barbarians included Muslims, who first wiped out the Celtic civilisation in Spain, and who then attacked France in 800 AD (before being stopped by Charles Martel.) They also invaded Italy, and twice reached the gates of Vienna, after destroying Constantinople.

Now they are besieging Cronulla.

According to ex Det. Sergeant Tim Priest, 45% of the inmates in French jails are Muslims, even though they are only 6% of the total French population. To bring people into this country that are hostile to our civilisation, very prone to welfare dependency and criminal behaviour, will eventually bankrupt this state. It will also destroy our once strong social cohesion, with catastrophic results.

I've tried to explain the Jennifer Clarke mindset here:

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-does-left-treat-us-differently.html